They don't have to be on the same level -- they both simply have to be engaged in the practice of journalism. And is the fact that they send people around the globe what makes them a journalistic entity? No. It's that they publish information that is important in some way, which is exactly what WikiLeaks does -- which makes them deserving of the same protection as the New York Times.
As the author of the post, maybe I can try and clear that up: my point was that while we have all failed to some extent -- by not supporting WikiLeaks and protesting things like the PayPal blockade and Amazon deletion and the government's dubious case -- the New York Times has failed by not using its national media platform to protest those things and their impact on free speech and freedom of the press. And my argument about why they didn't do that is in part that the NYT sees WikiLeaks as competition. Hope that helps.
before anyone gets too upset, I realize this analogy is not perfect -- as plenty of people have already pointed out. But I think the similarities are instructive.
I think the problem with this program is that it's tied not to the success of the company itself -- which everyone has a stake in -- but the success of social features with which many people at Google probably aren't even involved, and over which they have no control.
Alexis, this was an incredible post -- tremendously moving. You deserve some big props for sticking it through all that and achieving what you did. My mother had an aneurysm just as I was making a big move at work, and that kind of thing really puts things in perspective -- as your post did. Bravo.